If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Side note: NC State legislature is cutting welfare here. At first, I'm all "wtf?", but then someone tells me the numbers. Did you know that, until just recently, a single person on unemployment in NC could draw as much as $500 a week? They are cutting it down to $300 a week. $500 a week is more than low ranking U.S. military personnel make. It boggles the mind...

I totally agree. I'm all for welfare, but it should be minimum wage unless you have kids - and then it should be marginally higher per kid. I was just looking at welfare amounts and I was shocked - in 7 states, welfare can pay more than being a teacher. Which says a lot both about why some people might just choose to stay on welfare, and why there are so few good teachers in the US these days...

I totally agree. I'm all for welfare, but it should be minimum wage unless you have kids - and then it should be marginally higher per kid. I was just looking at welfare amounts and I was shocked - in 7 states, welfare can pay more than being a teacher. Which says a lot both about why some people might just choose to stay on welfare, and why there are so few good teachers in the US these days...

I am all for protecting the kids, but this bullshit of getting more welfare for each kid is fucking ridiculous. It should be really straight forward...if you are on welfare (AKA...a loser) have a (1) child you get a certain amount and the father MUST be notified and he MUST pay child support or he goes to jail. If you do not know who the father is or do not want to release the information, you are found to be parentally negligent and guilty of child abuse and welfare fraud. If you have a second child and do not know the father etc., you permanently lose custody of your children and you go to jail and must repay the state for you being a complete fucktard. I mean if you are on welfare, you have positively no business having a child. These asswads that have kids and have no personal responsibility or financial means to support them should be shot.

I totally agree. I'm all for welfare, but it should be minimum wage unless you have kids - and then it should be marginally higher per kid. I was just looking at welfare amounts and I was shocked - in 7 states, welfare can pay more than being a teacher. Which says a lot both about why some people might just choose to stay on welfare, and why there are so few good teachers in the US these days...

I would agree with you but then... Imagine someone who has been working ten years for the same company. He earned about 3500 € per month. He was a great employee, but the company started to have difficulties so he got fired.
5 years ago, when he could think that life would be great, he bought a house, and has to repay about 1500 a month. Not to mention the car, the health insurance, the electricity...

He has kids maybe. He's divorced. The pension he has to pay every month was calculated on the money he made, so it's fairly important. Maybe 500 € per kids. If he becomes unemployed, he can ask to judge to adapt it, but it will take a few months...

So here, he already spends about 3200 € a month.

What is he supposed to do with a minimum wage welfare ?

What I'm saying is that people spend what they earn. And when you lose money, you need time to adapt. That's why I think it's ok that welfare is calculated on the wage you made when you were working. After a while, it's decreasing. But it gives you a little time to breathe so you don't lose your house, your car and everything... especially if it's to find another job a couple months later.

What I'm saying is that people spend what they earn. And when you lose money, you need time to adapt. That's why I think it's ok that welfare is calculated on the wage you made when you were working. After a while, it's decreasing. But it gives you a little time to breathe so you don't lose your house, your car and everything... especially if it's to find another job a couple months later.

^This, this, this. So much. Too often do people perceive assistance programs as existing in a vacuum ("I'm just getting free money indefinitely for no reason"); they fail to look at the context and circumstances. I hear it asserted rather often that "if you are on benefits, you are a loser, you are worthless, you are a parasite," etc., but in many, many cases, the person receiving benefits is simply between two places in his or her life. Employment is not a guarantee for many people, and finding a job isn't always super easy. So it makes sense to have programs that help people who are in between jobs, for example.

I feel like people are so focused on "getting back" at the people who they feel are abusing the system, that they are willing to stab the people who *genuinely need* the system in order to get at them. That's a good way to destroy people who want to keep going, but can't for technical reasons and need a boost.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

My comment is based on the fact that the people talking about losing that extra $200 a week are people who have never made $500 a week in their lives. I see it from the side of the people who are abusing the system. If it is needed, its needed, but someone who hasn't worked in ages finagling the system out of more money than men fighting in the war get paid? I take issue with this. I understand that most people are on welfare temporarily and respect its necessity. I have no issue with people who lose their job and need it. But one of my closest friends, even, has been living on welfare for the last year, having not worked since last February, and doing relatively little to change that. Should he be getting more a month than someone in the military? Hell no.

Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565

Or what? Or you'll leave as soon as someone returns your rudeness and delete all your posts? I'm so scared.

My comment is based on the fact that the people talking about losing that extra $200 a week are people who have never made $500 a week in their lives. I see it from the side of the people who are abusing the system. If it is needed, its needed, but someone who hasn't worked in ages finagling the system out of more money than men fighting in the war get paid? I take issue with this. I understand that most people are on welfare temporarily and respect its necessity. I have no issue with people who lose their job and need it. But one of my closest friends, even, has been living on welfare for the last year, having not worked since last February, and doing relatively little to change that. Should he be getting more a month than someone in the military? Hell no.

100%. I also know a couple people (one of which is very Republican, ha) who lost their jobs and ended up on welfare. One of them (very liberal) actually told everyone he was making more being on welfare and wasn't gonna bother looking for a job unless one just kinda popped up. The other one (Republican) manipulated as much as possible to get the maximum benefits - she used to live in NYC and now lives in WI. She lost a job in WI, but got NYC-level welfare, which is obviously a lot higher. When I called her out on being anti-welfare, she said, "well, it's not black and white. There are exceptions." Ah, so it's okay when YOU do it...

how was trayvon martin the "attacker" when he was chased, in the rain, by someone carrying a gun? and how is zimmerman NOT the attacker when he called the police and the police said, "stop following him. go home."?

how was trayvon martin the "attacker" when he was chased, in the rain, by someone carrying a gun? and how is zimmerman NOT the attacker when he called the police and the police said, "stop following him. go home."?

Originally Posted by WebDudette

Basically, the only way I can think about it is, if a grown ass man had stayed in his car and controlled his emotions, none of this would have ever happened and Trayvon would still be alive.

I'm more and more unsure about this case. I recently read more into the facts on what actually happened that night, and first of all, the police didn't tell him to stop following him and go home... they told him they didn't need him to follow Martin, and actually there is evidence that Zimmerman was heading back to his van when the altercation happened, based on the fact that it happened between where his van was parked and where the 911 call was made. It is possible that Martin saw Zimmerman following him initially, and then when Zimmerman was heading back to his van, Martin found him and wanted to beat up the creepy guy who was following him in the middle of the night. If this is indeed true, then my previous argument regarding Zimmerman being the attacker is rather untrue. However, as I wasn't at the trial, I don't know exactly what the all the evidence was.

Basically, the only way I can think about it is, if a grown ass man had stayed in his car and controlled his emotions, none of this would have ever happened and Trayvon would still be alive.

QFT

Originally Posted by Llamas

I'm more and more unsure about this case. I recently read more into the facts on what actually happened that night, and first of all, the police didn't tell him to stop following him and go home... they told him they didn't need him to follow Martin, and actually there is evidence that Zimmerman was heading back to his van when the altercation happened, based on the fact that it happened between where his van was parked and where the 911 call was made. It is possible that Martin saw Zimmerman following him initially, and then when Zimmerman was heading back to his van, Martin found him and wanted to beat up the creepy guy who was following him in the middle of the night. If this is indeed true, then my previous argument regarding Zimmerman being the attacker is rather untrue. However, as I wasn't at the trial, I don't know exactly what the all the evidence was.

They asked him, "are you following him?" And he said, "Yes." And they said, "Okay, we don't need you to do that." In what language that is NOT a request for him to stop following him, I don't know.

As for when and where the altercation happened; I'm just really not convinced by the hypocrisy of the defense here. Zim was justified in following Tray, Zim was justified in using the gun because he feared for his life, but Tray wasn't justified in following him back (assuming that's what happened)? What the defense basically boils down to is, "Yes, Zimmerman provoked Trayvon by creeping him out, stalking him, and generally doing things that would make a normal person fearful at night in the rain, but since Tray went back towards him instead of running away, he's the one responsible." It's odd to me how this is only ever presented from Zimmerman's perspective, and Trayvon's is completely ignored.

What is the reasonable thing to do if you feel you are being followed or stalked? What is the reasonable course of action? You don't want to lead the potential stalker back to your house where your family and younger siblings are, especially if you suspect them of being armed. Trayvon doesn't know what Zimmerman is planning at this point. So let's say he DOES circle around and follow Zimmerman for awhile (which I don't believe for one second, but let's say he did). Let's say that a conflict ensues. This could be framed as a defensive conflict, in which Trayvon felt he had to drive away the stalker so as not to lead him to his home address. As someone who has been stalked, I can attest to the fact that it's very unnerving to think of a potentially armed stranger following you to your home and possibly harming friends or family.

It really sickens me how it's simply taken for granted that Zim was the default "defender" in every possible case. He's pretty much given the BOD wherever it could be perceived that he was defending himself, while Trayvon is not given the same BOD; I haven't heard even one person defending Zimmerman acknowledge the possibility that the opposite could also be true. Is it possible that Zim was the defense, and Trayvon assaulted him? I suppose, and on those grounds we'd have to find him not guilty because of the reasonable doubt thing. But in terms of ethically discussing what happened and what was done wrong, I simply don't buy the defense; it relies on too many charitable assumptions about Zimmerman and his character, while simultaneously relying on too many unflattering assumptions about Trayvon.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."